On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Peter Stuge wrote: >> I don't know where you get those enormous times from... >I agree that those times seem long, what does that server run on, >Andreas? And did you make a special test case application or time >binc, or some other application? (du?)
It's reiserfs. But not all (even Maildir) mail systems use reiserfs. The test I did was on a sleeping system. I didn't run "du" many times first to get all entries into the cache. >> # time du -h --summarize .Mailing\ Lists.Software.Qmail/ >> 43M .Mailing Lists.Software.Qmail/ >> real 0m0.047s >> user 0m0.012s >> sys 0m0.035s >Kernel caching has huge impact on these test, you would have to make >sure that nothing in that directory was in the cache before getting >good numbers. Which can be hard. Yes, these are definitely cached numbers. Running "du" the second time brings my INBOX numbers down from 8.580 secs to 0.015 secs. On a loaded mail server, all cache gets purged so you can't benefit from it. ;) Imagine "du" being run every time someone switches mailboxes on a system with more than 100 users... Calculating quota this way renders a mail server unusable. :-) Andy :-) -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | "It is better not to do something http://www.bincimap.org/ | than to do it poorly."
